Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT00844220

Coronary Artery Disease Management Using Multislice Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging

The primary objective of this study is to analyze the clinical value of a therapeutic management strategy based on the results of coronary CT angiography and functional MRI. The clinical value of CT and MRI will be analyzed in patients with suspected coronary artery disease.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

30 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Charité

Berlin, 10117, Germany

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Suspected coronary artery disease and planned conventional coronary angiography based on atypical angina pectoris

Exclusion criteria

  • Known coronary artery disease
  • ST elevation
  • Age below 30 years
  • Women of child-bearing potential without a negative pregnancy test
  • Inclusion in another study
  • Heart rate above 70 beats per min and contraindications to beta blockers
  • Atrial fibrillation or uncontrolled tachyarrhythmia, or advanced atrioventricular block
  • Inability to hold the breath for 10 s

Treatment and study plan

CT/MR

Procedure

CT/MRI-directed clinical management strategy

Catheterization

Procedure

Standard clinical management directed by conventional coronary angiography

Primary outcomes

  1. Complications

    Time frame: during or up to 2 days after procedures

    Death, stroke, and myocardial infarction and moderate to severe groin hematoma, groin pain, infections, allergies, thromboses, and arteriovenous fistula or other complications (if prolonging the in-hospital stay significantly by at least 24 hours).

Secondary outcomes

  1. Hard Cardiovascular Events

    Time frame: Follow-up 3 (36-60 Months)

    Composite endpoint: The most important secondary outcome will be hard cardiovascular events at final follow-up (3 years). These hard events include: cardiac and noncardiac death (death from any cause), stroke, and myocardial infarction. These hard events are considered as major adverse cardiovascular events.

  2. Comparison of Contrast Induced Nephropathy

    Time frame: Follow-up 1 (6-12 Months), Follow-up 2 (12-24 Months), Follow-up 3 (36-60 Months)

    To compare contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) defined as increase in creatinine by 25% or 0.5 mg/dl from baseline at the measurements obtained 18 to 24 and/or 46 to 50 hours after the initial procedures as part of standard safety parameters performed at our institution. In addition, CIN will also be assessed during the follow-ups.

  3. Comparison of Comparison of Soft Cardiovascular Events

    Time frame: Follow-up 3 (36-60, Months)

    To compare soft cardiovascular events (unstable angina pectoris, re-revascularization, and first revascularization at least 2 months after randomization, according to the results of Ladenheim et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 1986, at final follow-up.

  4. Comparison of In-Hospital Stay

    Time frame: Up to 24 hours after the end of the in-hospital stay.

    to compare the in-hospital stay time and overall length of stay.

  5. Quality of Life Analysis

    Time frame: Follow-up 1 (6-12 Months), Follow-up 2 (12-24 Months), Follow-up 3 (36-60 Months)

    To analyze the change in quality of life (QALY) in both groups (prior to the tests and at follow-up) using the SF-12 and the EuroQuol as general measurement tools and the MacNew questionnaire as disease-specific questionnaire.

  6. Confounding Effects of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Depression

    Time frame: Follow-up 1 (6-12 Months), Follow-up 2 (12-24 Months), Follow-up 3 (36-60 Months)

    To analyze the effect and potentially confounding effect of nutrition, physical activity (using the Freiburg questionnaire), and depression (assessed with the HADS questionnaire) in the two groups.

  7. Comparison of Cost-effectiveness

    Time frame: Follow-up 3 (36-60 Months)

    To compare cost-effectiveness in both groups using the primary and secondary efficacy data, the QALY data, and cost data derived from the trial.

  8. Comparison of Patient Preference

    Time frame: 24 hours after last procedure related to computed tomography or conventional coronary angiography

    To analyze patient preference and satisfaction with the therapeutic management strategies with a focus on the comfort during the imaging tests.

  9. Comparison of the Amount of Contrast Agent

    Time frame: 10 minutes after the examinations.

    Comparison of the amount of contrast agent

  10. Comparison of the Amount of Radiation Exposure

    Time frame: Comparison of the amount of radiation exposure

    10 minutes after computed tomography or conventional coronary angiography

  11. Analysis of Image Quality

    Time frame: Up to 24 hours after the end of computed tomography

    To analyze which image quality in multislice computed coronary angiography would be required to directly reliably triage patients to coronary artery bypass grafting.

  12. Analysis of Correlation and Agreement About the Stenosis Diameter Between Multislice Computed Coronary Angiography and Conventional Coronary Angiography

    Time frame: Up to 24 hours after the end of computed tomography

    To analyze the correlation and agreement between multislice computed coronary angiography and conventional coronary angiography (using quantitative analysis) for estimation of the percent diameter stenosis in patients who underwent both tests.

  13. Comparison of Biological Effects of Radiation Exposure

    Time frame: Z1) before exam, (Z2) 60 min after end of exam, (Z3) 18-24h after exam

    To compare the biological effects of radiation exposure of ionizing radiation, measured by DNA double-strand breaks in lymphocytes, of CT and conventional coronary angiography themselves and in the two randomization groups (approval by ethics board for this substudy with start of first patient analyzed on September, 15, 2009). Blood samples are taken for double-strand break analysis.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Charite University, Berlin, Germany

Other

Collaborators

  • Charite University, Berlin, Eva Schönenberger, MD
  • University Hospital Muenster
  • University of Freiburg

Registry information

Acronym: CAD-Man

Important dates

Study start
2009
Primary completion
2015
Study completion
2018
First posted
Feb 16, 2009
Registry last updated
Mar 15, 2021

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.